A thought about our significance

[carpedm9587]

Yes, you find some form of sacrificial system or atonement in just about all ancient religions. Which I find interesting - why do we think that we are at odds with whatever god or gods we believe are out there? If I were to make up a god I would invent one that is in happy agreement with all my lusts and selfishness...

That is indeed an interesting question, and if gods were simply "made up on the spot," I suspect that might indeed happen. But they were (and are) not. The idea of gods traces as far back to human origins as we are able to see. The idea took root in the earliest humans, struggling to survive and aware of their dependence on their environment. Storms were threats. Animals were threats. And the earth manifested such powerful things as volcanoes, earthquakes, meteor strikes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and so many other things well beyond the power of individuals to control. So for people to develop a religion in which appeasement of gods was central, as a way to "convince" the gods to protect them and see to their welfare is not odd whatsoever.

By the time you get to monotheisms, human society has evolved significantly, and with it the theologies behind these religions. But those deep roots were not likely to change all that much, given the length of time they existed.

[carpedm9587]

Because that is all we know about. Nothing in the bible says that we are the only beings in the universe though. Although I guess you could extrapolate that other parts of the universe are fallen also since God said that because of sin the entire creation is groaning.

And again you make the point of my OP. ALL of the vastness of the cosmos is "groaning" and "fallen" because of the choices/actions of one species on one small planet? Our universal significance is...frankly...unbelievable.

Just potentially eternal. Since I have a beginning I can't be completely eternal. God promises eternal life (or 'everlasting' life if you prefer) for those who come to him and ask to be forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus.

Yes, and coupled with absolute forgiveness - it is a powerful psychological message. It will especially appeal to those in a vulnerable state. There is no doubt that the "Christian message" is a powerful one.

[carpedm9587]

But basically your objection is nothing but an argument from incredulity.

Yes - it is. Some things, when all of it is looked at, are simply incredulous. There is nothing stopping an absolute, allpowerful god from arranging the entire cosmos any way it wishes, including being hyper-focused on a single species in an infinitessimal corner of the cosmos. When an all-powerful, supernatural being is posited, there is almost nothing (except the logically irrational) it cannot do.

But when I look at the scenario from the perspective of the human, and ask myself: what seems more reasonable, that an all-powerful being would be so minutely concerned with such a small species, or that the small species would have imagined a god that is so minutely focused on its behavior/existence, the latter simply seems far more likely to me.

[seer]

That is indeed an interesting question, and if gods were simply "made up on the spot," I suspect that might indeed happen. But they were (and are) not. The idea of gods traces as far back to human origins as we are able to see. The idea took root in the earliest humans, struggling to survive and aware of their dependence on their environment. Storms were threats. Animals were threats. And the earth manifested such powerful things as volcanoes, earthquakes, meteor strikes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and so many other things well beyond the power of individuals to control. So for people to develop a religion in which appeasement of gods was central, as a way to "convince" the gods to protect them and see to their welfare is not odd whatsoever.

That is not quite what I'm getting at. Why does the Hindu bath in Ganges river to wash away sin? One can seek the protection of a god or gods without believing that you are the cause of their displeasure. That your very natural behavior is somehow - wrong? Why did we almost universally believe that we were are not morally right...

[carpedm9587]

That is not quite what I'm getting at. Why does the Hindu bath in Ganges river to wash away sin? One can seek the protection of a god or gods without believing that you are the cause of their displeasure. That your very natural behavior is somehow - wrong? Why did we almost universally believe that we were are not morally right...

Because when you are facing massive power (like the examples I previously listed) that can and does do harm, it is natural to associate that with "anger." After all, we humans tend to do damage in anger - and not so much in a moment of tenderness. If there is a sentient, all-powerful being, and it is clear (by observing nature) that this god is wielding power in a harmful way, it is a short step to "it might be angry at me!" From there it is a short step to appeasement. Human cultures are full of ways in which the weak appease the more powerful.

I'm not sure why you are finding any of that odd...it seems a perfectly natural outgrowth of religious belief in an allpowerful supernatural being.

[Sparko]

And again you make the point of my OP. ALL of the vastness of the cosmos is "groaning" and "fallen" because of the choices/actions of one species on one small planet? Our universal significance is...frankly...unbelievable.

"unbelievable" is not an actual argument. It is a logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. I find the idea that this entirely vast and complicated universe from atoms to galaxies all came about out of nothing for no reason. A less than microscopic point of nothing suddenly (without time) expanded (without space) into everything we see?

So does the fact that I find all this incredulous proves that "God did it?"

Yes, and coupled with absolute forgiveness - it is a powerful psychological message. It will especially appeal to those in a vulnerable state. There is no doubt that the "Christian message" is a powerful one.

So you are one of those "Christianity is a crutch for the weak" guys, eh?

Fine, I admit I am weak and need Christ. Thank God for that crutch!

[seer]

Because when you are facing massive power (like the examples I previously listed) that can and does do harm, it is natural to associate that with "anger." After all, we humans tend to do damage in anger - and not so much in a moment of tenderness. If there is a sentient, all-powerful being, and it is clear (by observing nature) that this god is wielding power in a harmful way, it is a short step to "it might be angry at me!" From there it is a short step to appeasement. Human cultures are full of ways in which the weak appease the more powerful.

I'm not sure why you are finding any of that odd...it seems a perfectly natural outgrowth of religious belief in an allpowerful supernatural being.

Buy why are so many of these ancient cultures coming to nearly the same conclusions. Why would cultures from the ancient Jews to the Mayans to the Hindus to the Norse religions, who really had little or no contact with each other, come to the conclusion that there was a supremely powerful god or gods that even needed to be appeased? Why not simply accept that nature is nature? I don't think that the fact that we live in a dangerous world necessarily explains this.

[seer]

Fine, I admit I am weak and need Christ. Thank God for that crutch!

Amen brother!

[Zymologist]

So you are one of those "Christianity is a crutch for the weak" guys, eh?

Fine, I admit I am weak and need Christ. Thank God for that crutch!

Christianity is a crutch, Christianity is for the weak, Christianity is for idiots....

All true, and thank God for it.

[QuantaFille]

And that means....?

Stars don't care when another star dies. They aren't sentient. We have consciousness. Sheer numbers as a means of determining relative importance is absurd.

[carpedm9587]

"unbelievable" is not an actual argument. It is a logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. I find the idea that this entirely vast and complicated universe from atoms to galaxies all came about out of nothing for no reason. A less than microscopic point of nothing suddenly (without time) expanded (without space) into everything we see?

So does the fact that I find all this incredulous proves that "God did it?"

Absolutely not. Likewise the fact that I do not believe it is not proof that it is false. I am putting forward one of the many reasons I do not believe that Christian theology is accurate. As you note, an argument from incredulity doesn't prove anything. For me, it is merely another straw piled on the camel's back (and with that analogy, I am risking, of course, the inevitable "strawman" accusation ).

So you are one of those "Christianity is a crutch for the weak" guys, eh?

Fine, I admit I am weak and need Christ. Thank God for that crutch!

I don't think I said that. I think I said that the Christian message is psychologically powerful, and will be especially powerful on those who are more vulnerable. I know a lot of very strong people, psychologically and otherwise, who are Christian. That a message is likely to be very powerful on the weak does not mean only the weak accept the message.

[carpedm9587]

Buy why are so many of these ancient cultures coming to nearly the same conclusions.

Because they live in the same world, see the same power sources, have the same basic humanity in common, so they share common fears. Beyond those similarities, there was (and is) enormous difference between religious beliefs. Some were based on animals. Some were based on more human forms. Some attributed sentience to the forces of nature themselves.

Why would cultures from the ancient Jews to the Mayans to the Hindus to the Norse religions, who really had little or no contact with each other, come to the conclusion that there was a supremely powerful god or gods that even needed to be appeased?

Without a science to explain the functioning of the real world, how else would these people explain the world around them? They see and experience the limits of their own power - they can move a container of water, or even redirect a small stream. But there is "something" that is redirecting HUGE streams. They can water plants - but there is "something" watering the entire land. Why would they not come to the conclusion that this "something" is a sentient force more powerful than themselves? Why would they not anthrpomorphize nature any less than modern humans do, even WITH our sciences?

Why not simply accept that nature is nature? I don't think that the fact that we live in a dangerous world necessarily explains this.

Then I think you are ignoring what seems a pretty obvious and likely psychological development. A person who experiences themselves as a force with intent, would very likely see the other forces around them as likewise having "intent." Since the force is on a much more massive scale, that the being with the intent would be that much more powerful - hence a "god" of some sort - seems fairly obvious.

[carpedm9587]

Stars don't care when another star dies. They aren't sentient. We have consciousness. Sheer numbers as a means of determining relative importance is absurd.

So the fact that humans have sentience is the determining factor for importance? More sentience = more importance?

How do you make that case?

[QuantaFille]

So the fact that humans have sentience is the determining factor for importance? More sentience = more importance?

How do you make that case?

I'll ask you this. If I beat my toaster with a baseball bat until it is no longer functional, is that ok? If I do the same to my dog, is that ok? What is the difference between a living organism and non-sentient matter?

I have to clock back in to work now or I'd say more, I just want to see what your reply is to this for now.

[carpedm9587]

I'll ask you this. If I beat my toaster with a baseball bat until it is no longer functional, is that ok? If I do the same to my dog, is that ok? What is the difference between a living organism and non-sentient matter?

I'm not sure what you mean by "OK," but if you're asking if either act is moral, I would say the former is morally neutral, the latter is not. The difference (for me) lies in the ability of the latter to experience pain, whereas the former cannot. If the toaster was equipped with intelligence that gave it the ability to experience pain, the moral equation (for me) would change.

I have to clock back in to work now or I'd say more, I just want to see what your reply is to this for now.

No hurry! Your question was a thoughtful one. I'm looking forward to some of that "nuanced" observation...